I would but it has more to do with being willing to die for the ideals I believe my country represents rather than the country itself. I'd be willing to fight tyranny no matter where I lived.
Poll: would you die for your country?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
Hrmmmm... I had to come to terms with this decision myself when trying to sign up with the U.S. Marine Corps. I really, -really- enjoy being alive, but I couldn't think of any better way to be remembered by my family and friends than my risking my life to protect them and serve something greater than myself. But then there was that whole "not 100% believing in your religion and there being an afterlife, as well not being sure that you'd get through the Pearly Gates" thing.. I ended up flipping a coin. 
(I got rejected anyway after applying.. freaking mental disorders. I'M NOT CRAZY!!!1!! *tinfoil hat*)
(I got rejected anyway after applying.. freaking mental disorders. I'M NOT CRAZY!!!1!! *tinfoil hat*)
As it is, my country is not worth the sacrifice. Too much has been forgotten and thrown away in some delusional effort to remain a world power.
However, I will give my life for my neighborhood, friends, and family. When there is a sense of community to sustain us, then nothing is too high a cost when there is something being threatened.
But it doesn't mean I won't try to do what I can to help bring my country back to its own sense of community. What we are prepared to do today does not dismiss what we should be prepared to do for tomorrow.
However, I will give my life for my neighborhood, friends, and family. When there is a sense of community to sustain us, then nothing is too high a cost when there is something being threatened.
But it doesn't mean I won't try to do what I can to help bring my country back to its own sense of community. What we are prepared to do today does not dismiss what we should be prepared to do for tomorrow.
No, but I would die against a country I didn't like. For instance, Nazi Germany. But dying for Britain is like dying for pregnant teenagers, chavs and stupendous education fees.
None of the above. I wouldn't die for my country but I'm not ashamed of that fact. I love the country in which I love but I wouldn't die for it. I would however possibly be willing to die for my family and friends, who most live in my country and so in a way I would. But to die for a piece of land, no thank you.gabe12301 said:
War is a stupid way to resolve conflicts, plain and simple. Think about the Iraq War: all those poor people died on the streets and in the desert, but Hussein - the actual bad guy - gets to be on TV while wearing a nice suit. Sure he got hung in public, but that's not any more painful then getting shot and bleeding to death in an alleyway somewhere. And everything up until that point was a lot nicer than what his soldiers experienced. Why is the worse person getting better treatment? Because war is insane. So I'd have to be insane to participate in it!
As I see it there are two logical options. One, world leaders can fight these battles themselves. Maybe they could have a duel (like Europeans used to), or just beat each other to death in a ring. Everyone always talks about how much they hate their leaders, right? So let them start killing each other. If you really dislike them that much this is no big loss. And it's their conflict anyway, why shouldn't they be the ones putting their life on the line? Do we really think we're going to run out of politicians anytime soon?
The other option is that we transition away from war and start doing regime change via assassination. Say what you will about Obama, but everyone seems to agree that al Qaeda is a mess now that bin Laden is dead. The new leader isn't nearly as popular, there's a ton of infighting, and despite the promises of revenge they can't seem to get their act together. The same would have happened in Germany if they'd killed Hitler before he invaded Poland, or in North Korea today with Kim Jong Il. Most people are all too eager to fall into step with the crowd - it's why wars get fought in the first place - so remove the head and you remove the problem in most cases. Besides, it gives all us FPS gamers job security: those years of sniping from the top floor are finally going to pay off!
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of anyone dying ever. Despite my love of violent video games I'm actually a big softie who opposes the death penalty, wants prison reform, and would rather we spent all that defense money on medicine, welfare, and space exploration. But if there's going to be a conflict, let's make the people who suffer the consequences be the ones who created that conflict in the first place. If you lead, you bleed. Simple as that.
As I see it there are two logical options. One, world leaders can fight these battles themselves. Maybe they could have a duel (like Europeans used to), or just beat each other to death in a ring. Everyone always talks about how much they hate their leaders, right? So let them start killing each other. If you really dislike them that much this is no big loss. And it's their conflict anyway, why shouldn't they be the ones putting their life on the line? Do we really think we're going to run out of politicians anytime soon?
The other option is that we transition away from war and start doing regime change via assassination. Say what you will about Obama, but everyone seems to agree that al Qaeda is a mess now that bin Laden is dead. The new leader isn't nearly as popular, there's a ton of infighting, and despite the promises of revenge they can't seem to get their act together. The same would have happened in Germany if they'd killed Hitler before he invaded Poland, or in North Korea today with Kim Jong Il. Most people are all too eager to fall into step with the crowd - it's why wars get fought in the first place - so remove the head and you remove the problem in most cases. Besides, it gives all us FPS gamers job security: those years of sniping from the top floor are finally going to pay off!
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of anyone dying ever. Despite my love of violent video games I'm actually a big softie who opposes the death penalty, wants prison reform, and would rather we spent all that defense money on medicine, welfare, and space exploration. But if there's going to be a conflict, let's make the people who suffer the consequences be the ones who created that conflict in the first place. If you lead, you bleed. Simple as that.
With Stephen Harper in charge, all I can say is 'no thanks.' Because utltimately, if we're fighting for our country we're also fighting for the politicians that destroy it. The main criticism I have with Marytrdom is how completely ironic and pointless it is.
If I'm fighting for my country than chances are I'll be killing other people that are also fighting for their country. I don't know about you, but this sounds a tad illogical. And as of why I don't move - Well, not all of us have money.
If I'm fighting for my country than chances are I'll be killing other people that are also fighting for their country. I don't know about you, but this sounds a tad illogical. And as of why I don't move - Well, not all of us have money.
No, I don't, and while I've chilled out about it the last year or so, I'm still no patriot. Why do I live in my country? Because I was born here and I had no choice in that matter. Emmigration is a humongous pain in the ass as well, and I don't nearly dislike my country enough, or like another country's culture more, to do so.gabe12301 said:
But would I die for this arbitrary set of borders? Would I die for my culture? No, and I'm not ashamed of it either. Certain people or even values I might protect valiantly, but the Netherlands? No way.
